Subject: The Fundamental Problem of SR
From: "Bonnie Granat"
Date: 8/31/2003 12:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For
example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That
implies
that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same as
the
passage of a clock second in another frame.

No. If I understand it correctly, It takes "longer" for the the clock
second
to HAPPEN in the frame traveling very fast, because the light has not
only
to go UP to the mirror, but also has to travel FORWARD. Greater
distance,
greater "TIME." But the person traveling WITH the clock doesn't perceive
that.

That would be the correct description but this is conflicting with the SR
assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant

To say it's a universal constant is technically incorrect, as I understand
it. Nothing can go faster, but light itself can go slower, although that is
beside the point here. Light, in other words, doesn't always go at its top
speed.

which implies
that a clock second is an interval of universal time.

No, it doesn't. It just says that we have decided to use the distance that
light travels as a measure in OUR "clock." We could use the interval
between a dog barking if it were reliably regular. It doesn't really matter
WHAT is used as the measure. It just so happens that we use light, for
reasons that others can explain (I can't).


This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take "longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in all
frames of reference.


In the frame that is traveling, the second seems like a normal second.
From the point of view of nontraveling frames, the second seems to take
longer.

Frankly, it seems to me that the illusion is not in the fact that the second
is longer in the traveling person's clock, but rather in the fact that the
traveling person thinks the second is the same as it was when he was NOT
traveling. He cannot perceive that the second is longer than it was when he
was stationary.

In other words, we think of the lengthened second as being an illusion
perceived by the nontraveling person, when the illusion is really with the
traveling person, who cannot perceive that his second is longer than usual.
It seems normal to him, but apparently, it is longer to observers.

If I understand it correctly, THAT is where any illusion takes place. But I
may be mistaken, so let's see if anyone else comments on what I have said.


You have stated the fact correctly, but it is NOT an illusion. All physical
events, from the decay of elementary particles to the beating of your heart,
take longer from the observors viewpoint. The only realistic view is that
BOTH observor and observed are correct, in spite of the fact that they give
different numbers. There is not contridiction. A more correct title to this
thread would be "The Fundamental Cause of Lay Confusion over SR"